Criminal Law – Negotiable Instruments Act – Compounding of Offence – In the case of Devender Sharma versus State NCT of Delhi & Anr, the High Court of Delhi, presided by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Manoj Jain, dealt with a revision petition under Section 397, read with Sections 401 & 482 of Cr.P.C., challenging the conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. [Paras 1-5]

Condonation of Delay – The court condoned the delay in filing the revision petitions, with the consent of the respondents, ensuring no prejudice to their rights and contentions. [Paras CRL.M.A. 9426/2024, 3]

Settlement and Compounding – The petitioner, while in custody, reached a settlement with the complainant, leading to the filing of an application under Section 147 of the NI Act for compounding the offence. The Court noted the terms of the settlement and the payment of the agreed sum to the complainant. [Paras 7-12, 16-17]

Effect of Compounding – Acquittal – On allowing the application for compounding, the Court highlighted that compounding of the offence would result in acquittal as per Section 320(8) of Cr.P.C., directing the release of the petitioner if not required in any other case. [Paras 17-18]

Petition Disposal – The petition was disposed of, and instructions were issued for the petitioner's release and the submission of the cost payment proof [Paras 23-26].

Banking Law - Jurisdictional Conflict – Securitisation Act vs. Kerala State Fishermen Debt Relief Commission Act – The core issue is whether the KSFDRC can interdict actions taken under the Securitisation Act by a secured creditor – [Paras 1, 4].

Overriding Effect of Securitisation Act – Determination – The Court finds that Section 35 of the Securitisation Act has an overriding effect over other laws, including state legislation, due to its non obstante clause. The Court relies on precedents to establish the supremacy of Parliament-enacted legislation over conflicting state laws, under Article 246 of the Constitution of India. [Paras 7, 13-14]

Securitisation Act and State Legislation – Conflict Resolution – The judgment deliberates on the conflict between the Central legislation (Securitisation Act) and the State legislation (Kerala Fisherman Debt Relief Commission Act 2008), concluding that the former prevails due to the federal structure of legislation under the Indian Constitution. [Paras 10-13, 16]

Invalidity of KSFDRC’s Interdiction – Rationale – The Court reasons that the KSFDRC’s order directing the State Bank of India to refrain from proceeding under the Securitisation Act and to hand over the possession of secured assets is invalid. It holds that the KSFDRC lacked jurisdiction in this matter and erroneously assumed authority. [Paras 15-17]

Decision – Setting aside Order of KSFDRC – The High Court sets aside the order of the KSFDRC, reaffirming the bank’s liberty to proceed with recovery measures as per the Securitisation Act. The petition by the State Bank of India is allowed, establishing the primacy of the Securitisation Act over the Kerala Fisherman Debt Relief Commission Act in matters of secured creditors' rights. [Para 17]

Seizure and Freezing of Bank Accounts – Connection with Corruption Case – The appellant’s bank accounts were seized and frozen during the investigation of her husband (Accused No. 3) in a corruption case involving Canara Bank - [Paras 3-6, 13].

Trial Court’s Order on Seized Amounts – Allowed partial utilization of the seized funds; the rest was to be invested and its fate decided during the trial – Accused No. 3 acquitted of PC Act offenses but convicted under IPC sections - [Paras 4, 6, 7, 12].

Appeal for Release of Invested Funds – The appellant, suffering from cancer, appealed for release of the invested Rs. 2 lakhs for medical treatment; Trial Court deemed itself functus officio post-trial – [Paras 8-9, 13].

Bombay High Court Decision – Appeal allowed; Trial Court’s order set aside – Held that there was no finding linking the seized funds to the crime, and the appellant should not be deprived of her legitimate entitlement - [Paras 13-16].

Challenge against Tribunal’s Order – Petitioner aggrieved by Tribunal's dismissal of his application for deemed promotion date post-professional exam success – Tribunal's decision based on limitation and interpretation of Government Resolutions – High Court reevaluated the case, focusing on the continuous nature of cause of action and Government Resolutions interpretations. [Paras 1, 3, 8, 10]

Tribunal’s Misinterpretation of Limitation and Government Resolutions – Tribunal's error in suo motu addressing limitation issue and misreading Government Resolutions – High Court finds that application not barred by limitation and Tribunal's interpretation of Government Resolutions incorrect. [Paras 9-10, 14]

Applicability of Coordinate Bench’s Judgment – Case falls under dictum of Writ Petition No.1683/2021 – Coordinate Bench's judgment applicable, establishing petitioner’s right to claim relief of deemed promotion date from professional exam passing date. [Paras 11, 15]

Entitlement to Deemed Date of Promotion – Based on Government Resolutions, petitioner entitled to deemed promotion from professional examination passing date (18-03-1986 or 13-02-1986) – Tribunal’s order set aside, petitioner granted deemed promotion and consequential pensionary benefits. [Paras 12-13, 16-17]

Adoption Law - Cross-Border Adoption and Legal Recognition in India – Petitioners, Indian citizens residing in Kenya, adopted a child in Uganda and sought legal recognition of adoption in India [Paras 2, 3, 9].

CARA’s Inaction on Legalization Request – Petitioners approached CARA for legal sanctity in India but received no definitive response, leading to this petition [Paras 3, 9, 10].

Legal Framework for Adoption – Indian Juvenile Justice Act, Hague Convention, and Adoption Regulations applicable. Uganda not a Hague Convention signatory, creating complexity in adoption recognition [Paras 11-13].

Judicial Interpretation for Unforeseen Situations – Court emphasized the role of judicial review in adapting the law to unique situations not envisaged by legislators [Paras 13, 14].

Application of Foreign Judgments in India – Court applied Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, recognizing that foreign judgments can be conclusive in India, subject to conditions [Paras 15-17].

Direction for Action by CARA – Court mandated CARA to consider the petitioners’ request and issue a No Objection Certificate, harmonizing international and national legal provisions for adoption [Para 17].

Order:  The High Court directed CARA to process the petitioners’ request and grant a No Objection Certificate for adoption, complying with relevant laws and observations, within six weeks from the order receipt [Para 17].

Quashing of Proceedings – Incompetence of Complainant – Inadequate Authority of Additional Chief Medical Officer – Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act Violations –  Court holds that the Additional Chief Medical Officer, who filed the complaint, was not the ‘appropriate authority’ as mandated under Section 28 of the Act of 1994. Observes that the complaint was therefore incompetent, rendering the trial court’s cognizance of the offences and summoning of the applicant legally unsustainable. [Paras 2, 6, 9, 11]

Jurisdictional Competence – Filing of Complaint under Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act – Analysis of Section 28 of the Act of 1994 – Emphasizes the Act’s stipulation that only complaints made by the appropriate authority, as defined and appointed under Section 17 of the Act, can be cognized by courts. Recognizes that the complaint by the Additional Chief Medical Officer fell outside this jurisdictional ambit. [Para 4, 5, 9]

Decision – Quashing of Order and Proceedings – The court allows the application, quashing the order dated 03.06.2014 and all proceedings of Case No. 4495 of 2011. The decision underscores the importance of strict adherence to statutory requirements for legal actions under specialized legislation like the Pre-Conception & Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994. [Para 10-11]

Criminal Law – Copyright Infringement – Vicarious Liability – Court dealt with the issue of vicarious liability under the Copyright Act, 1957. The petition sought the quashing of proceedings against the petitioner, accused of copyright infringement in his capacity as AGM of a company. The Court examined the applicability of vicarious liability and the role of the company in the alleged infringement. [Para 1-7, 22-24]

Legal Standing of Phonographic Performance Ltd. (PPL) – Questioned – The petitioner challenged the legal standing of PPL, contending that it was not a registered society under Section 33 of the Copyright Act, and thus, not authorized to issue licenses for public performance of copyrighted music. The Court examined the legitimacy of PPL's claims based on the government notification and a Delhi High Court order. [Para 4-5, 7]

Company as Principal Accused – Necessary – The Court relied on Supreme Court judgments to establish that a company must be arraigned as a principal accused for proceeding against individuals like the petitioner. This was based on the principle that a company is a separate juristic entity, and vicarious liability arises only if the company itself has committed the offence. [Para 11-16, 25-27]

Amendment to Include Company as Accused – Permissible – The Court observed that if specific averments against a company are made in a complaint, and the company is not named due to inadvertence, the complaint can be amended to include the company as an accused. This was based on the principle of curable legal infirmity and the objective to avoid abuse of process. [Para 18-20, 27-28]

Decision – Dismissal of Quashing Petition – The Court dismissed the petition for quashing the proceedings, directing the trial court to add the company as a party to the case and proceed in accordance with law. The decision emphasized the need for a trial to ascertain the validity of the claims regarding copyright infringement and licensing. [Para 29-34]

Service Law – Disciplinary Proceedings – Compulsory Retirement –  Court examined the petitioner's challenge against the Tribunal's dismissal of his appeal regarding disciplinary actions including compulsory retirement, and later modification to withholding promotion for five years. The disciplinary actions stemmed from false declarations made by the petitioner concerning his parents' income and dependence for CGHS benefits and fraudulent claim of medical reimbursements. [Paras 1-6]

Judicial Review – Scope and Limitation – The Court observed the limited scope of judicial review in matters concerning disciplinary actions, emphasizing that the court cannot substitute the disciplinary authority's decision with its own but only review for legality, rationality, and procedural propriety. [Paras 20-21, 23]

Proportionality of Punishment – In assessing the proportionality of the punishment (withholding of promotion for five years), the Court took note of the serious nature of the charges, the initial penalty of compulsory retirement, and the subsequent modification by the appellate authority. The court found no grounds to interfere with the modified penalty. [Paras 8-9, 23]

Role of Disciplinary and Appellate Authorities – Highlighted the roles of disciplinary and appellate authorities in determining suitable penalties in disciplinary proceedings. The court recognized the appellate authority's decision to modify the penalty considering the petitioner's conduct and the circumstances of the case. [Paras 6, 9]

Dismissal of Writ Petition – The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision and dismissed the writ petition, finding no merit in the arguments for reducing the disciplinary penalty imposed on the petitioner. The decision reiterated the court's limited interference in matters where the disciplinary authority has competently exercised its judgment. [Para 24]

Right to Education – Eligibility for Admission under EWS Category – Involves petition for admission of a child, Jiya, under the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) category in a specific school for academic year 2023-24. High Court holds that right to education under Article 21A of the Constitution and Section 12 of the RTE Act entitles a child only to free and compulsory education till the age of fourteen, not to admission in a particular school of choice. For entitlement to admission in a specific school, a child must apply to the Directorate of Education (DoE), be shortlisted in a computerized draw, and allocated to that school for a specific academic year. [Paras 22-26]

Direction to Admit in Specific School – Legality – DoE's directive to admit Jiya in a specific school is deemed unenforceable, as it was based on an application and shortlisting for a previous academic year. Each academic year is treated as a separate entity; rights for admission do not carry forward automatically to subsequent years. Thus, the child's right to admission in the specific school ceased at the end of the academic year for which she was initially shortlisted. [Paras 30-32]

DoE’s Role in Admission Process – High Court notes the detailed process followed by DoE for EWS admissions and underscores the need for an application specific to class, school, and academic year. Directives issued by DoE are subject to these specific conditions and do not grant perpetual rights to admission in any subsequent academic year. [Paras 23-29]

Decision – Admission to Class II in Sought School – Jiya's petition for admission to Class II in the specific school is rejected based on absence of application for that academic year. However, the DoE is directed to make efforts to secure Jiya’s admission in another school as an EWS student for Class II, reflecting the commitment to uphold her right to education as guaranteed under the RTE Act and the Constitution. [Paras 36-38]